JUDGEMENT Per N.V. Ramana, J. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.10.2007, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, in S.C. No. 13 of 2006, convicting the appellant accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased, namely Kavuluri Janakamma, was working as a Cook in S.T. Girls Residential High School, Kachanapally. P.W.6, who is the son of the deceased, was studying VIII class in Saraswathi Vidya Mandir, Yellandu, and was residing with his uncle P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, who was studying V class in S.T. Girls Residential High School, Kachanapally, was staying with her. The accused, namely Pusam Nagaraju R/o. Kachanapally, is said to have developed illicit intimacy with the deceased since three years. The deceased used to visit her son at Yellandu now and then, and on her return from such visits, the accused doubting her chastity, used to come home drunk and beat her saying that she was maintaining illicit sexual relationship with others at Yellandu. 3. On 02.09.2005, the deceased went to Yellandu to meet the revenue officials regarding land issue. She also visited her son and returned home by 8.00 p.m. The accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased and beat her with hands and belt, and later, having dinner, both of them slept. Thereafter, the accused woke up in the midnight and killed the deceased by throttling her neck. P.W.2, who was sleeping by the side of the deceased, witnessed the incident. On the next day, P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.3 and informed him about the incident. Then P.W.3 and L.W.5 came to the house and saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the cot. After killing the deceased, the accused anticipating threat from the relatives of the deceased, decided to kill himself. He climbed the electric pole situated in front of the forest office at Kachanapally. When he touched the live high tension wires, he fell down. Due to electrocution, the accused sustained burn injuries over his hands and chest. 4. After killing the deceased, the accused anticipating threat from the relatives of the deceased, decided to kill himself. He climbed the electric pole situated in front of the forest office at Kachanapally. When he touched the live high tension wires, he fell down. Due to electrocution, the accused sustained burn injuries over his hands and chest. 4. On receipt of written information from the Village Secretary, Allapally, P.W.9, namely S.I. of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 12/2005 under Section 302 IPC against the accused, and took up investigation. He along with his staff went to the scene of offence and having found the accused attempted suicide, registered another case in Crime No. 13 of 2005 for the offence under Section 309 IPC. Then, he sent the accused for treatment to Government Hospital, Khammam. On receipt of wireless message, P.W.10, namely the C.I. of Police, Tekulapally, visited the scene of offence. He took up investigation from P.W.9 and verified the investigation done by him. Thereafter, he examined the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, namely P.W.7 and L.W.22 and incorporated the details in the C.D. Form. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene in their presence. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 6 and others, and after conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.7 and L.Ws. 22 and 23, sent the same to Government Hospital, for post-mortem examination. On discharge of the accused from the Government Hospital, he effected his arrest on 22.09.2005 at his house and produced him before the Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody P.W.8, namely the Medical Officer, having conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined the cause of death of the deceased as Asphyxia, leading to permanent cardiac arrest (throttling). Thus, P.W.10 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charge, examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5. On behalf of the defence, none was examined, but Ex. D1-wound certificate was marked. 7. The accused pleaded not guilty for the said charge and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charge, examined P.Ws. 1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P1 to P5. On behalf of the defence, none was examined, but Ex. D1-wound certificate was marked. 7. The learned Sessions Judge upon appraisal of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 8. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the appellant, who is the sole accused, filed this criminal appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 10. Now the point that arises for consideration in this criminal appeal is: 11. Whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 12. P.W.1 is the Village Secretary, who gave Ex. P1 - report, P.W.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased, P.W.3 is a colleague of the deceased in the S.T. Hostel, P.W.4 is the landlord of the accused and the deceased, P.W.5 along with L.W.10 is said to have advised the accused to live with the deceased peacefully, P.W.6 is the son of the deceased, P.W.7 along with L.W.22 is mediator to Ex. P2 scene of observation report and EX. P3 inquest report, P.W.8 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex. P4 - post mortem examination report, P.W.9 is the SI of police, who based on Ex. P1 - report given by P.W.1, registered crime and issued Ex. P5-FIR and P.W.10 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation of the case. 13. P.W.1 is the Village Secretary. He stated that on being informed by the villagers and P.W.2, namely the daughter of the deceased that the accused killed the deceased, he gave Ex. P1 - report to the police. The accused suspecting the deceased used to quarrel with her. He denied that he is related to the deceased. However, he admitted that he did not mention in Ex. P1 - report about the fact of P.W.2 informing him that the accused killed the deceased. 14. P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. P1 - report to the police. The accused suspecting the deceased used to quarrel with her. He denied that he is related to the deceased. However, he admitted that he did not mention in Ex. P1 - report about the fact of P.W.2 informing him that the accused killed the deceased. 14. P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. She is the eye-witness to the incident. She stated that herself, the deceased and the accused used to reside in one house during the life time of her mother-deceased. In the middle of the night, at about 12.00 a.m., the accused killed her mother by pressing her neck. When she intervened, the accused kicked her and killed her mother by pressing the neck. When she tried to raise cries, the accused threatened and told her that he will kill her also if she raised cries. She stated that she informed the same to P.W.1 in the early morning. That the accused left the scene of offence by 4.00 a.m. The accused killed the deceased before sunrise and she saw the incident. However, in her cross examination, P.W.2 stated that in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement she stated that when she tried to raise cries, the accused threatened her that he would kill her, and therefore, she stopped raising cries. In the early morning, she tried to wake up her mother and when she did not get up, she informed the neighbours about the killing. She admitted that the police read over her the 161 Cr.P.C. statement to her just before the start of court proceedings and till she came to the witness box. She denied the suggestion that the deceased committed suicide by hanging on her own accord, and stated that the accused pressed the neck of the deceased and then hanged her. She told the police that the accused killed the deceased by pressing her neck and then hanged her. 15. P.W.3 lives in a house opposite to the house of the deceased. She stated that she knows the accused, deceased and P.W.2. That the deceased used to work as Cook in a hostel. She is also a cook in the same hostel. That P.W.2 came and informed her that the accused killed the deceased. There is no good relationship between the accused and the deceased during the lifetime of the deceased. 16. She stated that she knows the accused, deceased and P.W.2. That the deceased used to work as Cook in a hostel. She is also a cook in the same hostel. That P.W.2 came and informed her that the accused killed the deceased. There is no good relationship between the accused and the deceased during the lifetime of the deceased. 16. P.W.4 is the owner of the house in which the deceased and accused used to stay for rent. He stated that the accused and deceased used to quarrel with each other during their stay in their house. They stayed in their house only for two months. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house is a thatched house and consists of two rooms, and when there is exchange of words in one room in loud voice, the same can be heard in the other room. That he did not hear any galata between the accused and the deceased after he slept at 9.00 p.m. He came to know about the death of the deceased in the morning at 6.30 a.m. 17. P.W.5 is a village elder. He stated that the accused used to beat the deceased on the ground that she developed illicit intimacy with others. When the accused beat, the deceased approached him, and then himself and L.W.10 called the accused and advised him to live with her peacefully. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 denied the suggestion that he belongs to CPI ML New democracy, and that as the accused and others started TDP party, disputes arose, and because of political rivalry, he is giving false evidence. 18. P.W.6 is the son of the deceased. He is a child witness. He stated that P.W.2 informed him that the accused killed his mother. The accused suspecting the character of the deceased that she is having illicit intimacy with others, used to beat the deceased frequently. However, in his cross-examination, he stated that he is studying 9th class at Yellandu. He is not residing with his mother, but is residing with his maternal grandfather and grand mother at Repallewada. He denied the suggestion that he has no acquaintance with the accused and that he was deposing falsely as tutored. He admitted that a constable and his brother brought him to the court. The police did not inform him as to what is to be deposed in the court. He denied the suggestion that he has no acquaintance with the accused and that he was deposing falsely as tutored. He admitted that a constable and his brother brought him to the court. The police did not inform him as to what is to be deposed in the court. However, he admitted that the police present in the court was working in Allapalli police station as a constable. 19. P.W.7 is the Sarpanch. He is mediator for the scene of offence EX. P2 along with L.W.22. 20. P.W.8 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued EX. P4 opining that the cause of death is probably asphyxia due to throttling. He admitted that he examined the accused and issued Ex. D1-wound certificate and that he examined the accused on 3rd September at 8.20 pm. 21. P.W.9 is the Sub Inspector of Police. He stated that basing on the report given by P.W.1, he registered a case in Crime No. 12 of 2005 and issued Ex. P5-FIR. 22. P.W.10 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation. He stated that he prepared rough sketch of scene of offence Ex. P2 in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.22. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.7, L.Ws. 22 and 23. In his cross-examination, he stated that he arrested the accused on 22.09.2005. That the accused tried to commit suicide and that he registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC. However, he denied the suggestion that as the deceased harassed, the accused tried to commit suicide, and the deceased being afraid that a case may be registered against her committed suicide. 23. The prosecution to prove the motive for the accused to kill the deceased, examined P.Ws., 3 to 6. P.W.3 except stating that there are no good relations between the accused and deceased during her lifetime, did not give any specific incident or the alleged suspicion of the accused against the deceased in her evidence. P.W.4 except stating that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel during their stay in their house, did not depose anything about the illicit intimacy or his suspicion against the deceased that she was having illicit relations with others. P.W.4 except stating that the accused and the deceased used to quarrel during their stay in their house, did not depose anything about the illicit intimacy or his suspicion against the deceased that she was having illicit relations with others. P.W.5 stated that the accused used to beat the deceased on the ground that she developed illicit intimacy with others, and when the accused beat the deceased, the deceased approached them, and then herself and L.W.10 called the accused and advised him to live with the deceased peacefully. Though P.W.5 stated that herself and L.W.10 advised the accused to live with the deceased peacefully, the fact remains, the prosecution did not examine L.W.10 to corroborate the version of P.W.5. 24. Though P.W.6 stated that the accused caused the death of the deceased on the ground that she is leading illicit intimacy with others, the fact remains, he is not an eye-witness to the incident, because at the time of the incident, he was residing with his grandparents at Repallewada. P.W.6 though stated that the police never asked him to depose before the Court, but he admitted in his evidence that his brother and the police brought him to the court and that the Constable who was present in the Court was working in Alllapalli Police Station. From this evidence of P.W.6, the possibility of his being tutored by the police to speak against the accused, cannot be rule out. 25. From the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 6, as discussed above, it is evident that all of them except making a general allegation that the accused suspected the character of the deceased and on the ground that she is living illicit intimacy with several people, did not make any specific allegation against the accused. Therefore, we hold that could not establish the motive for the accused to cause the death of the deceased beyond all reasonable doubt. 26. The prosecution to prove its case that the accused caused the death of the deceased, relied on the evidence of P.W.2-daughter of the deceased and the medical evidence of P.W.8-Doctor. Though, P.W.8-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined the cause of death of the deceased as asphyxia due to throttling, the fact remains, who killed the deceased by throttling her, has to be examined. 27. Though, P.W.8-Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined the cause of death of the deceased as asphyxia due to throttling, the fact remains, who killed the deceased by throttling her, has to be examined. 27. The prosecution, as noted above, examined P.W.2-minor daughter of the deceased, to prove its case that the accused killed the deceased. At the time of the incident P.W.2 was living with the deceased. Though P.W.2 stated that she saw the accused killing the deceased at 12.00 a.m., the fact remains, in cross-examination she admitted that early in the morning she tried to wake up her mother, and when she did not wake up, she informed about the killing of the deceased by the accused to her neighbours. If really the deceased was killed in the night, the question of her waking up by P.W.2 in the morning would not arise. P.W.2 admitted in her cross-examination that the police read over Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement to her just before the start of court proceedings and till she came into the witness box. This part of the evidence of P.W.2, clearly suggests that was tutored by the police to give evidence against the accused. Hence, we are of the considered opinion it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of P.W.2, to hold the accused guilty of committing the offence, particularly when her evidence is not corroborated with any other evidence of the witnesses. 28. Though the prosecution tried to relied upon one other fact that the accused after killing the deceased attempted suicide in the morning by climbing an electric pole, and in that context, an FIR was also registered against him, the fact remains, the prosecution neither marked the FIR in evidence no produced any material to show that the crime was investigated into by the police. In the absence of any evidence produced by the prosecution, it is difficult for us to know for what reason the accused tried to commit suicide. Therefore, the theory put forth by the prosecution that soon after the incident, the accused tried to commit suicide, cannot be believed. 29. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Therefore, the theory put forth by the prosecution that soon after the incident, the accused tried to commit suicide, cannot be believed. 29. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 13 of 2006 on 16.10.2007 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Khammam, against the appellant-accused, is hereby set aside. The appellant-accused is acquitted for the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and he shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.